09-20-2015, 10:38 AM
(09-19-2015, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm only pointing out that is the final, and only, option available to them for what they want. I hate the dancing around the issue, so let's just get to it.
Bollocks. Explain to me how anyone's freedoms are being trampled by legalizing SSM.
For all of those businesses that we heard about prior to this, that has nothing to do with SSM because whether the ceremony holds any legal standing matters not to the case.
Anyone is still free to view homosexual acts as sinful and view SSM as against their religion, so it is not infringing on anyone's rights to practice their faith.
Government officials take an oath to uphold the law and any activities carried out in that capacity are representative of the government and not the person. Each person is free to choose their own employment, and so if they are unable to carry out the duties of the office then they should not be in the position.
So please, tell me how legalizing SSM infringed on anyone's rights when the legal status of the marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights.
After that, you can explain to me why government should be removed from marriage when the civil aspects of marriage have been of more import than the religious for millennia. You've yet to address my comments to this regard in several threads, yet continue to parrot the talking point that government should be out of marriage. The contractual significance of a marriage is far older than any other aspect, including love.
What specifically am I responding.
